After work last Saturday I stopped in with some co-workers for a beer at a downtown bar and I was surprised to see how many people were in there on a Saturday. Turns out, they were having a drink before heading out to see U2 at Soldier. It didn't occur to me, at thte time, how stupid it is to have 2 concerts on a field one week before the first football game of the season. So now, they're going to plant some new sod (http://cbs2chicago.com/sports/soldier.field.sod.2.1186049.html). Umm, great?
That field sucks. I went to the last preseason game and couldn't believe how piss poor it looked. Now they get new sod that'll hardly have a chance to settle. The problem is that the McCaskeys and the CPD just pass the buck when it comes to maintenance--part of yet another weird, byzantine relationship that is prevalent in Chicago, but the solution would be for the McCaskeys to step up and throw down some cash and hire Roger Bossard to take care of that abortion of a football field.
Quote from: MAD on September 17, 2009, 08:10:23 AM
After work last Saturday I stopped in with some co-workers for a beer at a downtown bar and I was surprised to see how many people were in there on a Saturday. Turns out, they were having a drink before heading out to see U2 at Soldier. It didn't occur to me, at thte time, how stupid it is to have 2 concerts on a field one week before the first football game of the season. So now, they're going to plant some new sod (http://cbs2chicago.com/sports/soldier.field.sod.2.1186049.html). Umm, great?
That field sucks. I went to the last preseason game and couldn't believe how piss poor it looked. Now they get new sod that'll hardly have a chance to settle. The problem is that the McCaskeys and the CPD just pass the buck when it comes to maintenance--part of yet another weird, byzantine relationship that is prevalent in Chicago, but the solution would be for the McCaskeys to step up and throw down some cash and hire Roger Bossard to take care of that abortion of a football field.
and, for fuck's sake, put up a Payton statue.
Quote from: Fork on September 17, 2009, 08:15:49 AM
Quote from: MAD on September 17, 2009, 08:10:23 AM
After work last Saturday I stopped in with some co-workers for a beer at a downtown bar and I was surprised to see how many people were in there on a Saturday. Turns out, they were having a drink before heading out to see U2 at Soldier. It didn't occur to me, at thte time, how stupid it is to have 2 concerts on a field one week before the first football game of the season. So now, they're going to plant some new sod (http://cbs2chicago.com/sports/soldier.field.sod.2.1186049.html). Umm, great?
That field sucks. I went to the last preseason game and couldn't believe how piss poor it looked. Now they get new sod that'll hardly have a chance to settle. The problem is that the McCaskeys and the CPD just pass the buck when it comes to maintenance--part of yet another weird, byzantine relationship that is prevalent in Chicago, but the solution would be for the McCaskeys to step up and throw down some cash and hire Roger Bossard to take care of that abortion of a football field.
and, for fuck's sake, put up a Payton statue.
Word.
On the plus side, maybe we'll get to see Michael Gaines with a 12x14 piece of sod stuck in his facemask, giving entirely new avatar possibilities.
On the down side, Matt Forte could tear all of his knee ligaments while making a cut.
Win some, lose some.
If they insist on having high school games and concerts and the occasional college game on that field (which they should) they have to put in field turf. If Goddell had any balls he would force the Steelers and Bears to both do it. The Patriots did it and it's really slowed the progress of that franchise. They've been just awful the last three and a half years. Hell, the Pats did it in a week. The Bears remember, they did it just for them.
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 08:50:46 AM
If they insist on having high school games and concerts and the occasional college game on that field (which they should) they have to put in field turf. If Goddell had any balls he would force the Steelers and Bears to both do it. The Patriots did it and it's really slowed the progress of that franchise. They've been just awful the last three and a half years. Hell, the Pats did it in a week. The Bears remember, they did it just for them.
Don't know about now, but in the 70s, the Astroturf at Hansen Park was better than the shit at Soldier Field, which was like running on a pool table.
Have the City Championship games there, and college games when the Bears are out of town. Otherwise, don't put any additional wear on the field during the NFL season.
Quote from: Fork on September 17, 2009, 08:54:50 AM
Have the City Championship games there, and college games when the Bears are out of town. Otherwise, don't put any additional wear on the field during the NFL season.
Heckuva return on the $650 million taxpayer investment there, Forky.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 17, 2009, 09:23:49 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 17, 2009, 08:54:50 AM
Have the City Championship games there, and college games when the Bears are out of town. Otherwise, don't put any additional wear on the field during the NFL season.
Heckuva return on the $650 million taxpayer investment there, Forky.
How much do you really think they made off U2 there Chucky?
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 08:50:46 AM
If they insist on having high school games and concerts and the occasional college game on that field (which they should) they have to put in field turf. If Goddell had any balls he would force the Steelers and Bears to both do it. The Patriots did it and it's really slowed the progress of that franchise. They've been just awful the last three and a half years. Hell, the Pats did it in a week. The Bears remember, they did it just for them.
This.
Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to spend 3-4 million to put in field turf instead of constantly replacing the sod?
I wonder which connected developer has the contract to re-sod the field.
Quote from: Fork on September 17, 2009, 09:25:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 17, 2009, 09:23:49 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 17, 2009, 08:54:50 AM
Have the City Championship games there, and college games when the Bears are out of town. Otherwise, don't put any additional wear on the field during the NFL season.
Heckuva return on the $650 million taxpayer investment there, Forky.
How much do you really think they made off U2 there Chucky?
More than $0. It's a public venue. We paid for it. Book 600 events per year, please. If the Bears don't like that? Fucking move and build their own fucking place.
Quote from: fiveouts on September 17, 2009, 09:52:19 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to spend 3-4 million to put in field turf instead of constantly replacing the sod?
I wonder which connected developer has the contract to re-sod the field.
It would absolutely be cheaper. Hell, there are high schools who have put it in because in the long run it's cheaper than trying to water, mow, reseed, paint the lines, etc. on real grass.
Plus, Lovie tries to fill his team with fast guys, why not take better advantage of that speed?
I honestly think the only reason there's grass there is because of all the meatheads who think the Bears play "real football" on "real grass." (Even if it's mostly painted dirt by week six.)
I remember the Bears and the Park District taking a public victory lap when they tore up the awful old AstroTurf and put grass in 20 years ago.
You could argue pretty convincingly that spending what they did on Soldier Field and not putting a roof on it anyway was a terrible mistake. Because really, why would Chicago ever want to host a Final Four or a Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or something silly like that?
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 17, 2009, 09:52:19 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to spend 3-4 million to put in field turf instead of constantly replacing the sod?
I wonder which connected developer has the contract to re-sod the field.
It would absolutely be cheaper. Hell, there are high schools who have put it in because in the long run it's cheaper than trying to water, mow, reseed, paint the lines, etc. on real grass.
Plus, Lovie tries to fill his team with fast guys, why not take better advantage of that speed?
I honestly think the only reason there's grass there is because of all the meatheads who think the Bears play "real football" on "real grass." (Even if it's mostly painted dirt by week six.)
I remember the Bears and the Park District taking a public victory lap when they tore up the awful old AstroTurf and put grass in 20 years ago.
You could argue pretty convincingly that spending what they did on Soldier Field and not putting a roof on it anyway was a terrible mistake. Because really, why would Chicago ever want to host a Final Four or a Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or something silly like that?
They could have gone retractble, thus preventing any meathead fears that football should only be played outside in "Bears weather"
I'll bet they don't put in Field Turf because I believe World Cup socceer will only play on natural grass.
Quote from: Dave B on September 17, 2009, 11:28:10 AM
I'll bet they don't put in Field Turf because I believe World Cup socceer will only play on natural grass.
Could anybody win a bet with you on what you believe in?
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 17, 2009, 09:52:19 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to spend 3-4 million to put in field turf instead of constantly replacing the sod?
I wonder which connected developer has the contract to re-sod the field.
It would absolutely be cheaper. Hell, there are high schools who have put it in because in the long run it's cheaper than trying to water, mow, reseed, paint the lines, etc. on real grass.
Plus, Lovie tries to fill his team with fast guys, why not take better advantage of that speed?
I honestly think the only reason there's grass there is because of all the meatheads who think the Bears play "real football" on "real grass." (Even if it's mostly painted dirt by week six.)
I remember the Bears and the Park District taking a public victory lap when they tore up the awful old AstroTurf and put grass in 20 years ago.
You could argue pretty convincingly that spending what they did on Soldier Field and not putting a roof on it anyway was a terrible mistake. Because really, why would Chicago ever want to host a Final Four or a Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or something silly like that?
First two, yes. Last one, no'd.
Quote from: Dave B on September 17, 2009, 11:28:10 AM
I'll bet they don't put in Field Turf because I believe World Cup socceer will only play on natural grass.
I'll ask the soccer experts - since the US had the World Cup in 1994, how long would it generally take until they'd consider doing another one here? If it won't be for another 40 years, it shouldn't be a consideration.
They are having qualifying matches here. The reason I thought they may ban turf is that they built a grass field on top of the artificial surface at the Meadowlands a few years back.
DPD. I never thought I'd go to ussoccer.com, but here's what I found:
The Decision
In December 2010, soccer's governing body—the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)—will select the countries that will host the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup™.
FIFA has received confirmations of interest from eleven potential bidders, including the USA, to host one of the two tournaments. The other countries currently in the process of bidding for the event are:
Australia
Belgium-Netherlands
England
Indonesia
Japan
Mexico
Qatar (2022)
Russia
South Korea (2022)
Spain-Portugal
Before voting, FIFA's Executive Committee will visit each of the sites to confirm that the bidding country meets the requirements to host the event. Ultimately, the host countries are determined based on votes from the FIFA Executive Committee members.
Quote from: Dave B on September 17, 2009, 11:28:10 AM
I'll bet they don't put in Field Turf because I believe World Cup socceer will only play on natural grass.
Fuck soccer.
Quote from: Ghost of Dave Rosello on September 17, 2009, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: Dave B on September 17, 2009, 11:28:10 AM
I'll bet they don't put in Field Turf because I believe World Cup socceer will only play on natural grass.
Fuck soccer.
Soccer wouldn't fuck you, even with the lights off.
Granted, I was on the heels of a four year bender known as "college" in 1994, but I seem to recall that the Pontiac Silverdome was hosting games during the 1994 World Cup. Did that really happen or was it the resdiual effects of some Orange Sunshine I had ingested at a nitrous party and, if it did happen, did they just lay down grass over the turf?
Quote from: MAD on September 17, 2009, 01:48:44 PM
Granted, I was on the heels of a four year bender known as "college" in 1994, but I seem to recall that the Pontiac Silverdome was hosting games during the 1994 World Cup. Did that really happen or was it the resdiual effects of some Orange Sunshine I had ingested at a nitrous party and, if it did happen, did they just lay down grass over the turf?
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/DetroitLions/index.htm (http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/DetroitLions/index.htm)
Quote
During the summer of 1994, the Silverdome was the site of the first World Cup Soccer match ever played in a domed stadium. New ground was broken as natural grass was brought into the Silverdome for four soccer matches.
It's too bad Chicago doesn't have a soccer only stadium.
http://www.toyotapark.com/
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 02:38:30 PM
It's too bad Chicago doesn't have a soccer only stadium.
http://www.toyotapark.com/
No way in Hell World Cup matches get played in a place that holds less than the United Center.
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 11:19:35 AM
You could argue pretty convincingly that spending what they did on Soldier Field and not putting a roof on it and taking out 6,000 seats instead of adding 20,000 seats anyway was a terrible mistake. Because really, why would Chicago ever want to host a Final Four or a Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or something silly like that?
Augmented.
Quote from: Shatoon; Bringer of Corn on September 17, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
Quote from: Ghost of Dave Rosello on September 17, 2009, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: Dave B on September 17, 2009, 11:28:10 AM
I'll bet they don't put in Field Turf because I believe World Cup socceer will only play on natural grass.
Fuck soccer.
Soccer wouldn't fuck you, even with the lights off.
Since I'd probably just lie there and sweat I can understand that.
Quote from: Fork on September 17, 2009, 02:39:52 PM
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 02:38:30 PM
It's too bad Chicago doesn't have a soccer only stadium.
http://www.toyotapark.com/
No way in Hell World Cup matches get played in a place that holds less than the United Center.
It's like people go, "Soccer, who gives a fuck?" When's the last time some of you set foot in Chicago? There are at least 8 billion Mexicans living here. In Bucktown.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 17, 2009, 02:45:37 PM
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 11:19:35 AM
You could argue pretty convincingly that spending what they did on Soldier Field and not putting a roof on it and taking out 6,000 seats instead of adding 20,000 seats anyway was a terrible mistake. Because really, why would Chicago ever want to host a Final Four or a Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or something silly like that?
Augmented.
Without a roof, I think it was smart to cut the capacity. They're never going to host a Super Bowl, and all NFL teams are either finding out now, or will in the next couple of years that people are becoming more and more content to obsess over their favorite team from the comfort of their living room watching it in HD. That's why the NFL is hanging tough with the blackout rules, even though football "experts" think they should loosen them up.
I love NFL Sundays. I have Sunday Ticket, I've got a nice big TV and a comfy couch, and I can obsess over the Bears in the comfort of my own house. I used to go to a fair amount of games, and I do miss being there with 60,000 other Bears fans when something awesome happens, but I don't miss the drive, parking, being limited where you can tailgate, the dipshits who get up and wander down the rows during plays, the loooooong breaks in the action that you forget about when you're watching on TV, and getting rained or snowed on.
I love bad weather football...when I'm watching it on TV. I've sat through enough games where we got to cheer the high temperature when it was announced at 6 degrees. I've been to more than one game where I smuggled beer in, inside my coat and it froze solid before I could get it open.
It's never been better to watch football on TV than it is right now (some announcers notwithstanding), and it should only get better. The future is fewer seats, not more.
Hell, Jerry Jones built a 100,000 seat stadium and he's almost certainly going to have one or two games blacked out this season because his standing room only tickets don't count towards the number the NFL counts as the stadium's capacity. People are buying a $29 SRO ticket so they can walk around the stadium, see the game on the biggest f'ing TV in the world, and there are $229 seats that nobody wants, even though they are going to be in the stadium for the game.
I hate indoor football more than I hate the Vikings and Colts.
Quote from: Slack-E on September 17, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 17, 2009, 02:39:52 PM
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 02:38:30 PM
It's too bad Chicago doesn't have a soccer only stadium.
http://www.toyotapark.com/
No way in Hell World Cup matches get played in a place that holds less than the United Center.
It's like people go, "Soccer, who gives a fuck?" When's the last time some of you set foot in Chicago? There are at least 8 billion Mexicans living here. In Bucktown.
Soccer (http://dontevenreply.com/view.php?post=71), who gives a fuck?
Nudge. At halftime Andrea Kremer says some Bears players were complaining about the condition of the field.
And the field was complaining about the quality of the Bears.
Am I right?
Who's with me?
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 17, 2009, 11:24:20 AM
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 17, 2009, 09:52:19 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to spend 3-4 million to put in field turf instead of constantly replacing the sod?
I wonder which connected developer has the contract to re-sod the field.
It would absolutely be cheaper. Hell, there are high schools who have put it in because in the long run it's cheaper than trying to water, mow, reseed, paint the lines, etc. on real grass.
Plus, Lovie tries to fill his team with fast guys, why not take better advantage of that speed?
I honestly think the only reason there's grass there is because of all the meatheads who think the Bears play "real football" on "real grass." (Even if it's mostly painted dirt by week six.)
I remember the Bears and the Park District taking a public victory lap when they tore up the awful old AstroTurf and put grass in 20 years ago.
You could argue pretty convincingly that spending what they did on Soldier Field and not putting a roof on it anyway was a terrible mistake. Because really, why would Chicago ever want to host a Final Four or a Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or something silly like that?
They could have gone retractble, thus preventing any meathead fears that football should only be played outside in "Bears weather"
THIS.
Easily the dumbest thing about the whole Soldier Field renovation. Once they were going with the spaceship design, they should have just slapped the retractable roof on and been done with it, already.
Quote from: Reuschels_Jowls on November 23, 2009, 11:18:56 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 17, 2009, 11:24:20 AM
Quote from: Andy on September 17, 2009, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on September 17, 2009, 09:52:19 AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to spend 3-4 million to put in field turf instead of constantly replacing the sod?
I wonder which connected developer has the contract to re-sod the field.
It would absolutely be cheaper. Hell, there are high schools who have put it in because in the long run it's cheaper than trying to water, mow, reseed, paint the lines, etc. on real grass.
Plus, Lovie tries to fill his team with fast guys, why not take better advantage of that speed?
I honestly think the only reason there's grass there is because of all the meatheads who think the Bears play "real football" on "real grass." (Even if it's mostly painted dirt by week six.)
I remember the Bears and the Park District taking a public victory lap when they tore up the awful old AstroTurf and put grass in 20 years ago.
You could argue pretty convincingly that spending what they did on Soldier Field and not putting a roof on it anyway was a terrible mistake. Because really, why would Chicago ever want to host a Final Four or a Super Bowl, or the Olympics, or something silly like that?
They could have gone retractble, thus preventing any meathead fears that football should only be played outside in "Bears weather"
THIS.
Easily the dumbest thing about the whole Soldier Field renovation. Once they were going with the spaceship design, they should have just slapped the retractable roof on and been done with it, already.
No thanks. I'm not going to sit here thinking there's "Bear Weather" but in my opinion, football should still be played outdoors, you know, with real grass (at least shit that's taken care of. I could deal with field turf, though) in whatever weather is out there. And the fact that the Super Bowl doesn't go somewhere where it's not cold is a separate issue.
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
Quote from: Andy on November 24, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
everytime
Quote from: Andy on November 24, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
Sure, they open and close, but you know at the first chance of rain or snow or sub 30 degree weather, they'd close that shit.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 08:55:02 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 24, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
Sure, they open and close, but you know at the first chance of rain or snow or sub 30 degree weather, they'd close that shit.
And why not?
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:11:16 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 08:55:02 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 24, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
Sure, they open and close, but you know at the first chance of rain or snow or sub 30 degree weather, they'd close that shit.
And why not?
BEAR DOWN IN BEAR WEATHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:11:16 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 08:55:02 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 24, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
Sure, they open and close, but you know at the first chance of rain or snow or sub 30 degree weather, they'd close that shit.
And why not?
Yeti prefers to watch world-class athletes perform with the unnecessary built-in handicap of shitty conditions. It's the same reason he plays video games with one hand.
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on November 24, 2009, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:11:16 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 08:55:02 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 24, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
Sure, they open and close, but you know at the first chance of rain or snow or sub 30 degree weather, they'd close that shit.
And why not?
BEAR DOWN IN BEAR WEATHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bear weather! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iStrVSrFbA)
Woof Woof Woof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vykn16DAQ0I&feature=related)
Yeah, we aren't those Nancies from Frisco! WOOO! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKl1vrFzJ6o)
Without a dome, da bears will crush dose southern teams in the playoffs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMYs5e0NI28)
Lemme tell ya, without a Dome, we'll have a BIG advantage over teams that play in domes, especially when passing teams play in rain and wind and shit! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LpCKxdGH_U)
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:11:16 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 08:55:02 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 24, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
Sure, they open and close, but you know at the first chance of rain or snow or sub 30 degree weather, they'd close that shit.
And why not?
"Why not" what? That question's pretty vague. But if you're saying "Why not close the stadium?" then my reasoning is this: I've always felt that football can be played outside and should be. There are few weather conditions that actually cause the cancellation of the game. I have a thing for snowbowls and nice sloppy rain-filled fields. There are few things that I get caught up on "it's the tradition" but this is one of them. This isn't about BEAR WEATHER because if all of these players came from Chicago, then it might make sense, but when you have players from Florida, Texas, etc., it means nothing, because I'm sure those guys don't actually like the 10 degree games.
When it comes to baseball, I'm all for a retractable dome. It's unpossible to play when it's raining (or snowing.. Have fun Minnesota.).
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
The home team has an advantage in a weather game. If you don't see that, you're brain dead. Why you'd want to take that natural advantage away from your team is beyond me. It's not the only advantage that matters. Far from it. But... (slams hand on desk) God damnit, the Bears lost home playoff games because they weren't as good as the other team. They'd have lost no matter the weather. But ask IAN's Saints if the weather was a factor in 2006.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 09:38:30 AM
There are few things that I get caught up on "it's the tradition" but this is one of them.
If you really want to embrace this statfag thing you've got going, it means you have to let go of (and preferably mock) tradition.
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
Many time over: THIS!
Just a hunch...I'm guessing that weather adds randomness and chance to a game, not the other way around. In other words, I think bad weather handicaps the more talented teams. Bad weather makes the better team lose more often than it should on any given Sunday. Does that make sense?
Why should something as compeletly unpredicatable as weather have an effect on a football game or a season?
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
The home team has an advantage in a weather game. If you don't see that, you're brain dead. Why you'd want to take that natural advantage away from your team is beyond me. It's not the only advantage that matters. Far from it. But... (slams hand on desk) God damnit, the Bears lost home playoff games because they weren't as good as the other team. They'd have lost no matter the weather. But ask IAN's Saints if the weather was a factor in 2006.
This is the least smart thing you've ever typed.
Bullshit. I've typed way dumber things than that.
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:45:43 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 09:38:30 AM
There are few things that I get caught up on "it's the tradition" but this is one of them.
If you really want to embrace this statfag thing you've got going, it means you have to let go of (and preferably mock) tradition.
Can I be a major statfag for baseball? and be a slight statfag for football (i.e. hanging on to things like domes and how I'd hate the Bears if they got one)?
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 09:49:13 AM
Bullshit. I've typed way dumber things than that.
Fine. Please leave me to my hyperbole.
Quote from: Oleg on November 24, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
Many time over: THIS!
Just a hunch...I'm guessing that weather adds randomness and chance to a game, not the other way around. In other words, I think bad weather handicaps the more talented teams. Bad weather makes the better team lose more often than it should on any given Sunday. Does that make sense?
Why should something as compeletly unpredicatable as weather have an effect on a football game or a season?
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
The home team has an advantage in a weather game. If you don't see that, you're brain dead. Why you'd want to take that natural advantage away from your team is beyond me. It's not the only advantage that matters. Far from it. But... (slams hand on desk) God damnit, the Bears lost home playoff games because they weren't as good as the other team. They'd have lost no matter the weather. But ask IAN's Saints if the weather was a factor in 2006.
This is the least smart thing you've ever typed.
Oleg is... right?
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:52:11 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 24, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
Many time over: THIS!
Just a hunch...I'm guessing that weather adds randomness and chance to a game, not the other way around. In other words, I think bad weather handicaps the more talented teams. Bad weather makes the better team lose more often than it should on any given Sunday. Does that make sense?
Why should something as compeletly unpredicatable as weather have an effect on a football game or a season?
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
The home team has an advantage in a weather game. If you don't see that, you're brain dead. Why you'd want to take that natural advantage away from your team is beyond me. It's not the only advantage that matters. Far from it. But... (slams hand on desk) God damnit, the Bears lost home playoff games because they weren't as good as the other team. They'd have lost no matter the weather. But ask IAN's Saints if the weather was a factor in 2006.
This is the least smart thing you've ever typed.
Oleg is... right?
Thank God. Wait...what?
Well, there is no roof. So suck it.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 10:17:53 AM
Well, there is no roof. So suck it.
Thanks to your good friend Daley.
Quote from: CT III on November 24, 2009, 10:22:48 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 10:17:53 AM
Well, there is no roof. So suck it.
Thanks to your good friend Daley.
He's done some wonderful things by the Lakefront. We're truly blessed.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 10:23:33 AM
Quote from: CT III on November 24, 2009, 10:22:48 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 10:17:53 AM
Well, there is no roof. So suck it.
Thanks to your good friend Daley.
He's done some wonderful things by the Lakefront. We're truly blessed.
Charter One Pavilion is a great venue for a summer concert.
Quote from: BH on November 24, 2009, 10:25:32 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 10:23:33 AM
Quote from: CT III on November 24, 2009, 10:22:48 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 10:17:53 AM
Well, there is no roof. So suck it.
Thanks to your good friend Daley.
He's done some wonderful things by the Lakefront. We're truly blessed.
Charter One Pavilion is a great venue for a summer concert.
X marks the fun!
(http://i48.tinypic.com/30stzit.jpg)
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:36:18 AM
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on November 24, 2009, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:11:16 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 08:55:02 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 24, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
Sure, they open and close, but you know at the first chance of rain or snow or sub 30 degree weather, they'd close that shit.
And why not?
BEAR DOWN IN BEAR WEATHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bear weather! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iStrVSrFbA)
Woof Woof Woof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vykn16DAQ0I&feature=related)
Yeah, we aren't those Nancies from Frisco! WOOO! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKl1vrFzJ6o)
Without a dome, da bears will crush dose southern teams in the playoffs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMYs5e0NI28)
Lemme tell ya, without a Dome, we'll have a BIG advantage over teams that play in domes, especially when passing teams play in rain and wind and shit! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LpCKxdGH_U)
Following this chronologically, Teej, I fully expected the Dallas game after the '91 season to be where I bolded.
Quote from: MAD on November 24, 2009, 12:32:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 09:36:18 AM
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on November 24, 2009, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:11:16 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 08:55:02 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 24, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
They have these roofs that you can open and close. It's like a sunroof, only for stadiums. They've got one in Milwaukee that works about 40 percent of the time.
Sure, they open and close, but you know at the first chance of rain or snow or sub 30 degree weather, they'd close that shit.
And why not?
BEAR DOWN IN BEAR WEATHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bear weather! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iStrVSrFbA)
Woof Woof Woof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vykn16DAQ0I&feature=related)
Yeah, we aren't those Nancies from Frisco! WOOO! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKl1vrFzJ6o)
Without a dome, da bears will crush dose southern teams in the playoffs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMYs5e0NI28)
Lemme tell ya, without a Dome, we'll have a BIG advantage over teams that play in domes, especially when passing teams play in rain and wind and shit! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LpCKxdGH_U)
Following this chronologically, Teej, I fully expected the Dallas game after the '91 season to be where I bolded.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find that game on You Tube.
But, I did find more evidence that not having a dome helps the home team! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmOHfLFG2K4) Fork approves of this message.
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 24, 2009, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
But now they're paying a lot for a quarterback, even though Jay Cutler is sparing Carlos Zambrano from all of Kaplan's wrath.
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 24, 2009, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
But now they're paying a lot for a quarterback, even though Jay Cutler is sparing Carlos Zambrano from all of Kaplan's wrath.
The Steelers have the same philosophy that the Bears have always claimed to have. They're just a hell of a lot better at it. The Bears didn't try not to have a good quarterback. They just sucked at finding one.
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 03:45:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 24, 2009, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
But now they're paying a lot for a quarterback, even though Jay Cutler is sparing Carlos Zambrano from all of Kaplan's wrath.
The Steelers have the same philosophy that the Bears have always claimed to have. They're just a hell of a lot better at it. The Bears didn't try not to have a good quarterback. They just sucked at finding one.
To be fair, the Steelers sucked at finding a good QB for about 20 years between Bradshaw and Roethlisberger.
My Bubby Brister jersey will attest to that.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 03:45:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 24, 2009, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
But now they're paying a lot for a quarterback, even though Jay Cutler is sparing Carlos Zambrano from all of Kaplan's wrath.
The Steelers have the same philosophy that the Bears have always claimed to have. They're just a hell of a lot better at it. The Bears didn't try not to have a good quarterback. They just sucked at finding one.
To be fair, the Steelers sucked at finding a good QB for about 20 years between Bradshaw and Roethlisberger.
My Bubby Brister jersey will attest to that.
So there you go. Utler + 2011 = SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL! SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL!
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 03:45:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 24, 2009, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
But now they're paying a lot for a quarterback, even though Jay Cutler is sparing Carlos Zambrano from all of Kaplan's wrath.
The Steelers have the same philosophy that the Bears have always claimed to have. They're just a hell of a lot better at it. The Bears didn't try not to have a good quarterback. They just sucked at finding one.
To be fair, the Steelers sucked at finding a good QB for about 20 years between Bradshaw and Roethlisberger.
My Bubby Brister jersey will attest to that.
So there you go. Utler + 2011 = SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL! SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL!
As long as we're going with the correlation, Cutler seems more like the O'Donnell than the Roethlisberger in this scenario.
Which means you're only a Kordell and a Maddox away from finding your next great QB.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 03:45:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 24, 2009, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
But now they're paying a lot for a quarterback, even though Jay Cutler is sparing Carlos Zambrano from all of Kaplan's wrath.
The Steelers have the same philosophy that the Bears have always claimed to have. They're just a hell of a lot better at it. The Bears didn't try not to have a good quarterback. They just sucked at finding one.
To be fair, the Steelers sucked at finding a good QB for about 20 years between Bradshaw and Roethlisberger.
My Bubby Brister jersey will attest to that.
So there you go. Utler + 2011 = SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL! SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL!
As long as we're going with the correlation, Cutler seems more like the O'Donnell than the Roethlisberger in this scenario.
Which means you're only a Kordell and a Maddox away from finding your next great QB.
Wrong. Grossman = O'Donnell. Greise = Maddox. Orton = Your mom.
Utler = SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL!
SUPAH BEARS SUPAH BOWL!
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 05:58:17 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 03:45:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 24, 2009, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
But now they're paying a lot for a quarterback, even though Jay Cutler is sparing Carlos Zambrano from all of Kaplan's wrath.
The Steelers have the same philosophy that the Bears have always claimed to have. They're just a hell of a lot better at it. The Bears didn't try not to have a good quarterback. They just sucked at finding one.
To be fair, the Steelers sucked at finding a good QB for about 20 years between Bradshaw and Roethlisberger.
My Bubby Brister jersey will attest to that.
So there you go. Utler + 2011 = SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL! SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL!
As long as we're going with the correlation, Cutler seems more like the O'Donnell than the Roethlisberger in this scenario.
Which means you're only a Kordell and a Maddox away from finding your next great QB.
Wrong. Grossman = O'Donnell. Greise = Maddox. Orton = Your mom.
Utler = SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL!
My mom's neckbeard is way more impressive than Orton's.
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 03:45:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 24, 2009, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
But now they're paying a lot for a quarterback, even though Jay Cutler is sparing Carlos Zambrano from all of Kaplan's wrath.
The Steelers have the same philosophy that the Bears have always claimed to have. They're just a hell of a lot better at it. The Bears didn't try not to have a good quarterback. They just sucked at finding one.
To be fair, the Steelers sucked at finding a good QB for about 20 years between Bradshaw and Roethlisberger.
My Bubby Brister jersey will attest to that.
So there you go. Utler + 2011 = SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL! SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL!
As long as we're going with the correlation, Cutler seems more like the O'Donnell than the Roethlisberger in this scenario.
Which means you're only a Kordell and a Maddox away from finding your next great QB.
We get it, you hate Jay Cutler.
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 24, 2009, 06:07:23 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 05:30:15 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on November 24, 2009, 05:08:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 24, 2009, 03:45:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 24, 2009, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 24, 2009, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 24, 2009, 09:41:56 AM
Is any other NFL team handicapped as much by having a style of football they're supposed to play? There's the Bear weather thing, which I suppose ties in with the idea that "Bear football" means running the ball well. I don't understand why a sports franchise with ever-changing personnel should have a locked-in style of play from year to year.
It's one thing if fans and announcers want to talk about it. It's another if the team's head coach actually believes it.
"Playing Bear Football" is management codespeak for "We don't want to pay a lot for quarterback".
But now they're paying a lot for a quarterback, even though Jay Cutler is sparing Carlos Zambrano from all of Kaplan's wrath.
The Steelers have the same philosophy that the Bears have always claimed to have. They're just a hell of a lot better at it. The Bears didn't try not to have a good quarterback. They just sucked at finding one.
To be fair, the Steelers sucked at finding a good QB for about 20 years between Bradshaw and Roethlisberger.
My Bubby Brister jersey will attest to that.
So there you go. Utler + 2011 = SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL! SUPER BEARS SUPER BOWL!
As long as we're going with the correlation, Cutler seems more like the O'Donnell than the Roethlisberger in this scenario.
Which means you're only a Kordell and a Maddox away from finding your next great QB.
We get it, you hate Jay Cutler.
DRLP. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6988.msg195458#msg195458)
Quote from: Oleg on November 24, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
Just a hunch...I'm guessing that weather adds randomness and chance to a game, not the other way around. In other words, I think bad weather handicaps the more talented teams. Bad weather makes the better team lose more often than it should on any given Sunday. Does that make sense?
Why should something as compeletly unpredicatable as weather have an effect on a football game or a season?
I disagree on a few different points.
I don't think bad weather lets bad teams play with good ones. The really good teams are the ones that can play both a speed/timing based offense/defense and a power one. Bad teams are typically only able to do one thing. You take a flawed power team versus a flawed speed team and the field conditions are going to make a big difference. But a good team can play even with either on their favorable field and house them otherwise. Good coordinators have systems that don't assume they can power run at will and don't assume they can run timing routes successfully every week, they adapt to the conditions and opposing strengths. Shitty coordinators try and do the same shit every week and are shocked when it only works when it's a favorable match-up. If every team played in a dome we'd have a lot of arena league style ball to watch. Personally, I abhor the idea but I have to concede that it's aesthetic and there's nothing wrong with liking pure speed football.
I like that the weather changes the dynamics of the game. It adds extra levels to the strategy and the narrative of the game. And both teams play in the same weather so it's not like it's a random factor. I think it's one of the aspects that draws me to football over the NBA where the biggest factor between games always feels like just being whichever team gets fucked more by the refs.
No to mention, coaches and GMs will tailor their teams to fit the environment. One of the reasons dome teams have trouble playing outdoors, especially in December, is that they built the team to play on a field with no variables - the temperature is always the same, the wind is nonexistent, and there's no rain/snow.
It's easier for a team that is built to play outdoors to adapt to shitty conditions than it is for a team that is built to play indoors.
Quote from: Pre on November 24, 2009, 07:39:33 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 24, 2009, 09:47:43 AM
Just a hunch...I'm guessing that weather adds randomness and chance to a game, not the other way around. In other words, I think bad weather handicaps the more talented teams. Bad weather makes the better team lose more often than it should on any given Sunday. Does that make sense?
Why should something as compeletly unpredicatable as weather have an effect on a football game or a season?
I disagree on a few different points.
I don't think bad weather lets bad teams play with good ones. The really good teams are the ones that can play both a speed/timing based offense/defense and a power one. Bad teams are typically only able to do one thing. You take a flawed power team versus a flawed speed team and the field conditions are going to make a big difference. But a good team can play even with either on their favorable field and house them otherwise. Good coordinators have systems that don't assume they can power run at will and don't assume they can run timing routes successfully every week, they adapt to the conditions and opposing strengths. Shitty coordinators try and do the same shit every week and are shocked when it only works when it's a favorable match-up. If every team played in a dome we'd have a lot of arena league style ball to watch. Personally, I abhor the idea but I have to concede that it's aesthetic and there's nothing wrong with liking pure speed football.
I like that the weather changes the dynamics of the game. It adds extra levels to the strategy and the narrative of the game. And both teams play in the same weather so it's not like it's a random factor. I think it's one of the aspects that draws me to football over the NBA where the biggest factor between games always feels like just being whichever team gets fucked more by the refs.
I would do well just to shut up and let Pre make all my points for me. But I just can't help myself. I
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2009, 07:31:07 AM
No to mention, coaches and GMs will tailor their teams to fit the environment. One of the reasons dome teams have trouble playing outdoors, especially in December, is that they built the team to play on a field with no variables - the temperature is always the same, the wind is nonexistent, and there's no rain/snow.
It's easier for a team that is built to play outdoors to adapt to shitty conditions than it is for a team that is built to play indoors.
I agree with exactly none of this.
Quote from: Andy on November 25, 2009, 08:31:59 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2009, 07:31:07 AM
No to mention, coaches and GMs will tailor their teams to fit the environment. One of the reasons dome teams have trouble playing outdoors, especially in December, is that they built the team to play on a field with no variables - the temperature is always the same, the wind is nonexistent, and there's no rain/snow.
It's easier for a team that is built to play outdoors to adapt to shitty conditions than it is for a team that is built to play indoors.
I agree with exactly none of this.
FANK IS FOOTBALL CHUCK!!!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/joe_posnanski/05/25/super.bowl.ny/index.html
QuoteBasically here is the thing I haven't liked: Pro football, for the most part, has lost the weather. And that's terrible. I'm not saying football is a cold-weather sport ... I'm saying it's an all-weather sport. And they have more or less legislated snow and rain and ice and mud out of the game. Oh, it's still there in places -- in Green Bay and Chicago and Boston and Kansas City and so on -- but these days it's not just possible but quite likely that at least one team will make it to the Super Bowl without facing the weather at all. Last year, Indianapolis and New Orleans made it to the Super Bowl without playing outdoors once in the playoffs ... and then they played the game itself in a Miami suburb.
A year earlier, Arizona made it to the Super Bowl in a playoff run that included one outdoor game -- in Charlotte.
There have been dome teams in four of the last five Super Bowls, and while I have no qualms with domes, it sure would be nice to see those teams tested at least once outdoors, in the snow, in the mud, in whatever weather happens to come up.
This is because I think weather is a big part of football. Not just cold weather. Hot weather too. Muggy weather. Windy weather. All weather. To me, weather is one of the main things that separates it from our other major sports. Hockey and basketball are indoors, in controlled environments. Baseball is not built for extreme weather, and when it gets played in the snow, it feels like a farce. The strange thing is that baseball games are being played later and later in the year, bringing in more and more inclement weather. That's the screwy way of our sports world. While baseball is being played more in the snow, football is being played less.
...
... From a sporting side, I've always thought that a cold-weather Super Bowl now and again makes a lot of sense. You have to love Bill Cowher's classic line: "Yeah, I'd like 75 degrees and sunny all the time, too, but that's not football." It's not. Football, like life, has sunny days, but also involves storms and mud and times when you can't stop shivering. Football, like life, involves unfair bounces and sudden bursts of wind and trying to catch wobbly passes with frostbitten fingers. Football, like life, brings out those days when you look out your window and wish you could just stay in bed. Football is 34-27. It's also 7-6.
...
You might remember that for a long, long time no dome team had ever won a Super Bowl -- the Rams were the first in 1999, and since then the Colts (2006) and Saints (last year) have followed. Anyway, no dome team won for a long time and I remember asking Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt why that was. And he said: "Because sooner or later, you have to come out and play." I've always loved that line, but lately it hasn't really been accurate. In the last few years, you could win a Super Bowl without ever really facing the elements. That's a part of life now, a part of the game, and I get that. There are more domes now than ever. There are more warm-weather cities now than ever. Pro football has created its own bit of global warming.
And that's fine. But it's great that at least for one year, yes, if you want to be the best team in the NFL, you will have to come out and play.
That.
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 27, 2010, 02:32:46 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/joe_posnanski/05/25/super.bowl.ny/index.html
QuoteBasically here is the thing I haven't liked: Pro football, for the most part, has lost the weather. And that's terrible. I'm not saying football is a cold-weather sport ... I'm saying it's an all-weather sport. And they have more or less legislated snow and rain and ice and mud out of the game. Oh, it's still there in places -- in Green Bay and Chicago and Boston and Kansas City and so on -- but these days it's not just possible but quite likely that at least one team will make it to the Super Bowl without facing the weather at all. Last year, Indianapolis and New Orleans made it to the Super Bowl without playing outdoors once in the playoffs ... and then they played the game itself in a Miami suburb.
A year earlier, Arizona made it to the Super Bowl in a playoff run that included one outdoor game -- in Charlotte.
There have been dome teams in four of the last five Super Bowls, and while I have no qualms with domes, it sure would be nice to see those teams tested at least once outdoors, in the snow, in the mud, in whatever weather happens to come up.
This is because I think weather is a big part of football. Not just cold weather. Hot weather too. Muggy weather. Windy weather. All weather. To me, weather is one of the main things that separates it from our other major sports. Hockey and basketball are indoors, in controlled environments. Baseball is not built for extreme weather, and when it gets played in the snow, it feels like a farce. The strange thing is that baseball games are being played later and later in the year, bringing in more and more inclement weather. That's the screwy way of our sports world. While baseball is being played more in the snow, football is being played less.
...
... From a sporting side, I've always thought that a cold-weather Super Bowl now and again makes a lot of sense. You have to love Bill Cowher's classic line: "Yeah, I'd like 75 degrees and sunny all the time, too, but that's not football." It's not. Football, like life, has sunny days, but also involves storms and mud and times when you can't stop shivering. Football, like life, involves unfair bounces and sudden bursts of wind and trying to catch wobbly passes with frostbitten fingers. Football, like life, brings out those days when you look out your window and wish you could just stay in bed. Football is 34-27. It's also 7-6.
...
You might remember that for a long, long time no dome team had ever won a Super Bowl -- the Rams were the first in 1999, and since then the Colts (2006) and Saints (last year) have followed. Anyway, no dome team won for a long time and I remember asking Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt why that was. And he said: "Because sooner or later, you have to come out and play." I've always loved that line, but lately it hasn't really been accurate. In the last few years, you could win a Super Bowl without ever really facing the elements. That's a part of life now, a part of the game, and I get that. There are more domes now than ever. There are more warm-weather cities now than ever. Pro football has created its own bit of global warming.
And that's fine. But it's great that at least for one year, yes, if you want to be the best team in the NFL, you will have to come out and play.
That.
That gave me wood
Quote from: Yeti on May 27, 2010, 02:56:56 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 27, 2010, 02:32:46 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/joe_posnanski/05/25/super.bowl.ny/index.html
QuoteBasically here is the thing I haven't liked: Pro football, for the most part, has lost the weather. And that's terrible. I'm not saying football is a cold-weather sport ... I'm saying it's an all-weather sport. And they have more or less legislated snow and rain and ice and mud out of the game. Oh, it's still there in places -- in Green Bay and Chicago and Boston and Kansas City and so on -- but these days it's not just possible but quite likely that at least one team will make it to the Super Bowl without facing the weather at all. Last year, Indianapolis and New Orleans made it to the Super Bowl without playing outdoors once in the playoffs ... and then they played the game itself in a Miami suburb.
A year earlier, Arizona made it to the Super Bowl in a playoff run that included one outdoor game -- in Charlotte.
There have been dome teams in four of the last five Super Bowls, and while I have no qualms with domes, it sure would be nice to see those teams tested at least once outdoors, in the snow, in the mud, in whatever weather happens to come up.
This is because I think weather is a big part of football. Not just cold weather. Hot weather too. Muggy weather. Windy weather. All weather. To me, weather is one of the main things that separates it from our other major sports. Hockey and basketball are indoors, in controlled environments. Baseball is not built for extreme weather, and when it gets played in the snow, it feels like a farce. The strange thing is that baseball games are being played later and later in the year, bringing in more and more inclement weather. That's the screwy way of our sports world. While baseball is being played more in the snow, football is being played less.
...
... From a sporting side, I've always thought that a cold-weather Super Bowl now and again makes a lot of sense. You have to love Bill Cowher's classic line: "Yeah, I'd like 75 degrees and sunny all the time, too, but that's not football." It's not. Football, like life, has sunny days, but also involves storms and mud and times when you can't stop shivering. Football, like life, involves unfair bounces and sudden bursts of wind and trying to catch wobbly passes with frostbitten fingers. Football, like life, brings out those days when you look out your window and wish you could just stay in bed. Football is 34-27. It's also 7-6.
...
You might remember that for a long, long time no dome team had ever won a Super Bowl -- the Rams were the first in 1999, and since then the Colts (2006) and Saints (last year) have followed. Anyway, no dome team won for a long time and I remember asking Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt why that was. And he said: "Because sooner or later, you have to come out and play." I've always loved that line, but lately it hasn't really been accurate. In the last few years, you could win a Super Bowl without ever really facing the elements. That's a part of life now, a part of the game, and I get that. There are more domes now than ever. There are more warm-weather cities now than ever. Pro football has created its own bit of global warming.
And that's fine. But it's great that at least for one year, yes, if you want to be the best team in the NFL, you will have to come out and play.
That.
That gave me wood
That made me want to make fun of PenFoe. Not sure why. It just did.
Quote from: Bort on May 27, 2010, 03:24:21 PM
Quote from: Yeti on May 27, 2010, 02:56:56 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 27, 2010, 02:32:46 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/joe_posnanski/05/25/super.bowl.ny/index.html
QuoteBasically here is the thing I haven't liked: Pro football, for the most part, has lost the weather. And that's terrible. I'm not saying football is a cold-weather sport ... I'm saying it's an all-weather sport. And they have more or less legislated snow and rain and ice and mud out of the game. Oh, it's still there in places -- in Green Bay and Chicago and Boston and Kansas City and so on -- but these days it's not just possible but quite likely that at least one team will make it to the Super Bowl without facing the weather at all. Last year, Indianapolis and New Orleans made it to the Super Bowl without playing outdoors once in the playoffs ... and then they played the game itself in a Miami suburb.
A year earlier, Arizona made it to the Super Bowl in a playoff run that included one outdoor game -- in Charlotte.
There have been dome teams in four of the last five Super Bowls, and while I have no qualms with domes, it sure would be nice to see those teams tested at least once outdoors, in the snow, in the mud, in whatever weather happens to come up.
This is because I think weather is a big part of football. Not just cold weather. Hot weather too. Muggy weather. Windy weather. All weather. To me, weather is one of the main things that separates it from our other major sports. Hockey and basketball are indoors, in controlled environments. Baseball is not built for extreme weather, and when it gets played in the snow, it feels like a farce. The strange thing is that baseball games are being played later and later in the year, bringing in more and more inclement weather. That's the screwy way of our sports world. While baseball is being played more in the snow, football is being played less.
...
... From a sporting side, I've always thought that a cold-weather Super Bowl now and again makes a lot of sense. You have to love Bill Cowher's classic line: "Yeah, I'd like 75 degrees and sunny all the time, too, but that's not football." It's not. Football, like life, has sunny days, but also involves storms and mud and times when you can't stop shivering. Football, like life, involves unfair bounces and sudden bursts of wind and trying to catch wobbly passes with frostbitten fingers. Football, like life, brings out those days when you look out your window and wish you could just stay in bed. Football is 34-27. It's also 7-6.
...
You might remember that for a long, long time no dome team had ever won a Super Bowl -- the Rams were the first in 1999, and since then the Colts (2006) and Saints (last year) have followed. Anyway, no dome team won for a long time and I remember asking Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt why that was. And he said: "Because sooner or later, you have to come out and play." I've always loved that line, but lately it hasn't really been accurate. In the last few years, you could win a Super Bowl without ever really facing the elements. That's a part of life now, a part of the game, and I get that. There are more domes now than ever. There are more warm-weather cities now than ever. Pro football has created its own bit of global warming.
And that's fine. But it's great that at least for one year, yes, if you want to be the best team in the NFL, you will have to come out and play.
That.
That gave me wood
That made me want to make fun of PenFoe. Not sure why. It just did.
Don't look at me, I don't root for some sorry ass Dome team.
Make fun of TEC.
I'm just happy the Giants get another home game without a city getting wiped out by a hurricane.
Quote from: PenPho on May 27, 2010, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 27, 2010, 03:24:21 PM
Quote from: Yeti on May 27, 2010, 02:56:56 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 27, 2010, 02:32:46 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/joe_posnanski/05/25/super.bowl.ny/index.html
QuoteBasically here is the thing I haven't liked: Pro football, for the most part, has lost the weather. And that's terrible. I'm not saying football is a cold-weather sport ... I'm saying it's an all-weather sport. And they have more or less legislated snow and rain and ice and mud out of the game. Oh, it's still there in places -- in Green Bay and Chicago and Boston and Kansas City and so on -- but these days it's not just possible but quite likely that at least one team will make it to the Super Bowl without facing the weather at all. Last year, Indianapolis and New Orleans made it to the Super Bowl without playing outdoors once in the playoffs ... and then they played the game itself in a Miami suburb.
A year earlier, Arizona made it to the Super Bowl in a playoff run that included one outdoor game -- in Charlotte.
There have been dome teams in four of the last five Super Bowls, and while I have no qualms with domes, it sure would be nice to see those teams tested at least once outdoors, in the snow, in the mud, in whatever weather happens to come up.
This is because I think weather is a big part of football. Not just cold weather. Hot weather too. Muggy weather. Windy weather. All weather. To me, weather is one of the main things that separates it from our other major sports. Hockey and basketball are indoors, in controlled environments. Baseball is not built for extreme weather, and when it gets played in the snow, it feels like a farce. The strange thing is that baseball games are being played later and later in the year, bringing in more and more inclement weather. That's the screwy way of our sports world. While baseball is being played more in the snow, football is being played less.
...
... From a sporting side, I've always thought that a cold-weather Super Bowl now and again makes a lot of sense. You have to love Bill Cowher's classic line: "Yeah, I'd like 75 degrees and sunny all the time, too, but that's not football." It's not. Football, like life, has sunny days, but also involves storms and mud and times when you can't stop shivering. Football, like life, involves unfair bounces and sudden bursts of wind and trying to catch wobbly passes with frostbitten fingers. Football, like life, brings out those days when you look out your window and wish you could just stay in bed. Football is 34-27. It's also 7-6.
...
You might remember that for a long, long time no dome team had ever won a Super Bowl -- the Rams were the first in 1999, and since then the Colts (2006) and Saints (last year) have followed. Anyway, no dome team won for a long time and I remember asking Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt why that was. And he said: "Because sooner or later, you have to come out and play." I've always loved that line, but lately it hasn't really been accurate. In the last few years, you could win a Super Bowl without ever really facing the elements. That's a part of life now, a part of the game, and I get that. There are more domes now than ever. There are more warm-weather cities now than ever. Pro football has created its own bit of global warming.
And that's fine. But it's great that at least for one year, yes, if you want to be the best team in the NFL, you will have to come out and play.
That.
That gave me wood
That made me want to make fun of PenFoe. Not sure why. It just did.
Don't look at me, I don't root for some sorry ass Dome team.
Make fun of TEC.
Yeah, but you live in some sorry ass Dome state.
Quote from: Fork on May 27, 2010, 03:43:29 PM
I'm just happy the Giants get another home game without a city getting wiped out by a hurricane.
While watching Mayor Bloomberg do a post-winning bid touchdown dance that made Deion Sanders look like Jim Brown, I wondered:
Do other big city mayors get excited about an event taking place in a neighboring state? I wonder if Mayor Daley is bursting with civic pride with the Indy 500 taking place this weekend.
Quote from: Brownie on May 27, 2010, 06:24:38 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 27, 2010, 03:43:29 PM
I'm just happy the Giants get another home game without a city getting wiped out by a hurricane.
While watching Mayor Bloomberg do a post-winning bid touchdown dance that made Deion Sanders look like Jim Brown, I wondered:
Do other big city mayors get excited about an event taking place in a neighboring state? I wonder if Mayor Daley is bursting with civic pride with the Indy 500 taking place this weekend.
He would if all the hotel rooms and big parties were going to be in Chicago.
Quote from: PenPho on May 27, 2010, 06:44:10 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 27, 2010, 06:24:38 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 27, 2010, 03:43:29 PM
I'm just happy the Giants get another home game without a city getting wiped out by a hurricane.
While watching Mayor Bloomberg do a post-winning bid touchdown dance that made Deion Sanders look like Jim Brown, I wondered:
Do other big city mayors get excited about an event taking place in a neighboring state? I wonder if Mayor Daley is bursting with civic pride with the Indy 500 taking place this weekend.
He would if all the hotel rooms and big parties and were going to be in Chicago.
The whole "were"?
Quote from: PenPho on May 27, 2010, 06:44:10 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 27, 2010, 06:24:38 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 27, 2010, 03:43:29 PM
I'm just happy the Giants get another home game without a city getting wiped out by a hurricane.
While watching Mayor Bloomberg do a post-winning bid touchdown dance that made Deion Sanders look like Jim Brown, I wondered:
Do other big city mayors get excited about an event taking place in a neighboring state? I wonder if Mayor Daley is bursting with civic pride with the Indy 500 taking place this weekend.
He would if all the hotel rooms and big parties were going to be in Chicago.
Wait, the Playboy Party won't be in the Secaucus Hampton Inn?
Wow, can't believe this thread is three years old. Anyway, it sounds like Sunday's surface conditions at Soldier Field could get absolutely shitty (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-soldier-field-conditions-could-get-messy-20130913,0,3721239.story). How unusual.